Search

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

Go to page

Go to page

Go to page

Member

First step: you're doing the cfop/roux hybrid that is bad but with eo. (DRDL, F2L, CMLL, LSE). That doesn't save the method. You're better off doing standard roux.
Second step: not bad, but nothing massively good either.
Third step: exactly the same as the second.
Fourth step: CMLL messes up eo, so you'd use COLL.
Fifth step: L6EP (ELL but with 2 extra edges) would make this method alright.

Verdict: not bad, but not good. When you're coming up with new methods, you'll want to think if what you're proposing is bringing anything new to the scene, but don't let one not so good method mean that you don't make any more. Keep up with ideas and at least one good one will be in there.

Member

First step: you're doing the cfop/roux hybrid that is bad but with eo. (DRDL, F2L, CMLL, LSE). That doesn't save the method. You're better off doing standard roux.
Second step: not bad, but nothing massively good either.
Third step: exactly the same as the second.
Fourth step: CMLL messes up eo, so you'd use COLL.
Fifth step: L6EP (ELL but with 2 extra edges) would make this method alright.

Verdict: not bad, but not good. When you're coming up with new methods, you'll want to think if what you're proposing is bringing anything new to the scene, but don't let one not so good method mean that you don't make any more. Keep up with ideas and at least one good one will be in there.

I understand. That makes a lot of sense. However, I invite you to look at Lin finish as opposed to just Roux Finish. I know that won’t save the method either, but I think that finish has potential and I want to keep working with it.

Member

I understand. That makes a lot of sense. However, I invite you to look at Lin finish as opposed to just Roux Finish. I know that won’t save the method either, but I think that finish has potential and I want to keep working with it.

It's that method just with a different way to do F2L. L5E should be a nice alg set, and you should do L5C before L5E if you want to do it the best (1 look). And I think it needs to be explored a bit because it could be good, but afaik, L5C->L5E is the best for now.

Member

For the Lin finish, you can do COLL+edge->L5EP or CMLL+edge->L5E. If you do CMLL+edge, you might as well not do eo first and do the blocks like roux.

It's that method just with a different way to do F2L. L5E should be a nice alg set, and you should do L5C before L5E if you want to do it the best (1 look). And I think it needs to be explored a bit because it could be good, but afaik, L5C->L5E is the best for now.

I know. I didn’t originally understand that CMLL doesn’t preserve EO. So it would be insert DB edge, then COLL+1, then EPLL. All that is only 47 algs. I’m not trying to prove that this is a good method, I’m just trying to help you understand what I was going for.

Member

That's a very interesting method! If you were gonna optimise it for speedsolving, 42 corners would work well with it, or even straight L5C, but that's 614 algorithms, so not really alg free. And I can see how this could be optimised a lot in terms of movecount. When I can, I'll edit this post with some more thoughts on the method after playing about with it.

EDIT: So, I've done a few solves so far, and I think that this method has potential. There just needs to be some speed optimising of the L3E+centres steps. Making that algorithmic would help a lot, but that's not too hard as you can just use comms from bld. The best way to do corners is 42 style IMO, as it allows you to use only 42 algorithms that a lot of solvers attracted to this method will already know (roux), and it's applicable on 3x3 as well. I'm not sure how it compares to Yau, but if it's more efficient, it should stand a good chance, and as you don't get parity, that will also help.

Thanks for trying it out! If you know a CLL algorithm set, then I think you're right that solving two 1x3x4 blocks and then doing the corners of the last layer would be easiest and fastest (this is basically Lewis method). Inserting the last edge in step 3b is not very move-efficient. Solving the corners and this one edge are the least efficient parts of the method, requiring just over 3 moves per piece solved.

I figured the last steps would be difficult to optimize for speed since they rely on slice moves, and speed solvers don't like slice moves. But it would be extremely easy to generate a set of algorithms for the edge pieces of the last slice, since there are only 24 possible permutations, arranged in 6 groups of 4 representing the 4 different positions of a rotated slice. So if you consider the 4 rotations to be a single permutation, then there are only 6 cases, one of which is a skip. In addition, the commutators for the last 3 edges in a single slice are always exactly the same and very easy to recognize.

User Rachmaninovian has already created an algorithm set for centers-last solving which is linked on the Sandwich Method wiki page, so that could be adapted here. There would of course be fewer cases and some more restrictions since we have 6 center pieces in one slice solved already. Much of the move efficiency in the last step of my solves comes from using 4-move commutators to solve lots of pieces at once, but these can be difficult to conjugate so they might not be appropriate for a speed solve. It also takes me about 12 minutes to solve a 4x4, and I'm sure if you spent 12 minutes on almost any method it would be very move-efficient.

Thanks again for taking the time to try it out. I can't really speak to speed solving, but I'm glad that you think it could be adapted to that purpose!

Edit: I just tried a "speed" solve and got 7 minutes, which is good for me I guess!

Member

What if Instead of doing CMLL 4a 4b and 4c you just did CMLL EBL (Edges of bottom layer) then ELL (Edges of Last Layer). Would that be a faster approach, or is it not worth looking into. Please write your opinions below!

Member

What if Instead of doing CMLL 4a 4b and 4c you just did CMLL EBL (Edges of bottom layer) then ELL (Edges of Last Layer). Would that be a faster approach, or is it not worth looking into. Please write your opinions below!

No, it's not worth anything.
Doing ELL alone is less efficient than LSE. The reason is because with ELL, you have less freedom and have to backtrack to solve, but LSE 4a, 4b, 4c, you don't have either of those problems, and each step is very short. (am I making sense?)
The whole not backtracking thing is why computer algorithms like Thistlewaite and Kociemba don't blockbuild.
Many people has had this idea, but its less efficient, requires learning 25 algs, and is slower overall.

This is exactly how the original proposal by Andrew solves the last 10 pieces, if you don’t know.
He also thought of HexagonalFrancisco-CT where you solve L10P with EODF, "TSLE", and TTLL. I think this is the faster approach, and has similar alg count as original because at TSLE, slot edge will already be inserted. Both around 130ish.
Either way is good, original or ct.
Also, like the signature of Hexagonal Francisco is the Hexagon, so solving a 2x2x3 at the start wouldn't be much of a HF variant in my opinion.

I thought of a way of L10P that would require a whole lot less algs:
EO - intuitive, easy, max 5 unique cases
CO - easier than CLS but harder than 2x2 CO. Requires 23 algs.
L5CP - basically the best TTLL's from each set. 8 algorithms. kind of inefficent, perhaps the downfall to this idea?
L5EP - Completely MU 2-gen, 16 algs. recognition may be hard, but algs are very quick.
Slower than 3 step aproaches, but has a third the algs.
What do you think?

Member

That is inherently false. ELL is in fact a subset of L6E where the user has memorized speed-optimal algorithms for each possible case. Thus, it will always be faster than an intuitively created solution. That being said, bottom layer/top layer is not necessarily better. I think that the method's biggest downfall is the pause for recognition before ELL, and the worse ergonomics as compared to 4c. However, EBL, which includes solving the centers, seems faster than EOLR. With reflections, AUFs, and the guarantee that centers will be oriented (i.e. white or yellow will be facing up, for most people), there are only 24 cases, if I'm not wrong. It seems like they would generally be quick. I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.

Member

That is inherently false. ELL is in fact a subset of L6E where the user has memorized speed-optimal algorithms for each possible case. Thus, it will always be faster than an intuitively created solution.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
Efficient as in movecount.
Definition of efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
/ preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
In this case, productivity = solving cube, but resource can mean movecount, as well as ergonomics, number of looks, steps, or time (pauses relates to time).

Most of the time, when people say efficient, they mean moves or something of that nature.

Average ELL cases are “deeper” positions of the cube than average LSE cases, they require more moves, thus less efficient move-count wise.

With reflections, AUFs, and the guarantee that centers will be oriented (i.e. white or yellow will be facing up, for most people), there are only 24 cases, if I'm not wrong. It seems like they would generally be quick. I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.

I disagree with this, because ell has pretty nice algs apart from maybe one case, plus the recog isn't bad. But the main reason why ebl->ell is bad is because you're being less efficient and the lookahead is worse, as many people can do LSE virtually pauseless.

I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?

Permuting Last Edges - For this, you solve a L/R pair just like Roux, then another L/R on the other side, not a lot to learn, but then when you get to 4c step, there are many tricks you can use to finish your solve, such as R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 and Conjugated H-perm.

Stats-
Algorithms: min 5
Intuitive parts that get way better when you learn some efficient algs, cases, and tricks: literally everything
Movecount: about 42-48

This method doesn’t compete for the best speedsolving method, rather, Isom’s Kociemba is a fun novelty method with almost no algorithms and might be useful for FMC as well. (unrelated sidenote: what methods go on the wiki?)
It is possible to be fast with this, but not as easy as with CFOP/Roux.

That’s about it!
Solvador Cubi, hope this is what you’re asking for! If you want me to make a video, I can
~WoowyBaby

Member

Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.

I have made a few equivalent Amino posts on it, where I also have videos of the best executions of the algs.

I call this method the Tesseract method. I designed it as an add-on set of algs for any top-first solver, especially one that uses 1-Flip or Oka.The top consists of a solved edge, and two edges that need to switch. Unlike Nutella, however, these edges don't for a solid block of color on the front.

I'll be honest and say that not all of the algs are the best. I just wanted an alg for every case. Though, some are, in my opinion, are very good.

Member

Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
Efficient as in movecount.
Definition of efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
/ preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
In this case, productivity = solving cube, but resource can mean movecount, as well as ergonomics, number of looks, steps, or time (pauses relates to time).

Most of the time, when people say efficient, they mean moves or something of that nature.

Average ELL cases are “deeper” positions of the cube than average LSE cases, they require more moves, thus less efficient move-count wise.

True. I was just being a bit nitpicky about the wording you used in your post from before, because it gave me the impression that you were saying that any L6E case will be solvable faster than any ELL case.

I disagree with this, because ell has pretty nice algs apart from maybe one case, plus the recog isn't bad. But the main reason why ebl->ell is bad is because you're being less efficient and the lookahead is worse, as many people can do LSE virtually pauseless.

Member

Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.

I have made a few equivalent Amino posts on it, where I also have videos of the best executions of the algs.

I call this method the Tesseract method. I designed it as an add-on set of algs for any top-first solver, especially one that uses 1-Flip or Oka.The top consists of a solved edge, and two edges that need to switch. Unlike Nutella, however, these edges don't for a solid block of color on the front.

I'll be honest and say that not all of the algs are the best. I just wanted an alg for every case. Though, some are, in my opinion, are very good.

It's probably another useful method to know for top first. Just learn more methods, and if you can come up with your own, great! I'm not good at pyra though, so if someone who was good could give their thoughts too, that'd be great.

Member

I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?
...

About Speedsolving.com

SpeedSolving.com is a community focused on speed-solving puzzles, particularly the Rubik’s cube and alike. Created in 2006, the speedcubing community has grown from just a few to over 35,000 people that make up the community today. Competitions and unofficial meetups are organized all over the world on a weekly basis. The forum now has well over 1,200,000 posts and growing.